Recommended Posts

Assuming its on even grounds, you won't achieve anything as axis trying to fight for tank columns. Its simply an uphill battle you cannot win. The reason for that is very complex which would probably take 1-2 pages to fully explain.﻿﻿

There is generally the attempt to simplify this issue by saying that pilots of one side are simply playing wrong and it's all their fault. A more challenging approach would be to ask why pilots on a certain side behave like they do. Again, generalizing statements like "they just don't want to die" and "they don't care about the objective" are misleading, add nothing to the discussion and are plain wrong. Assuming that one player base is generally different from the other is a very biased view which i can only explain by them never having flown on both sides extensively. ﻿﻿﻿

Soooo, can you like, i don't know, post some arguments to support your assertions?

Because this stinks to me more like "ive red a book of WW2 German ace and i want to fly just like him and make that style of flying the only kosher one".

And if we classify the issue of certain team going for stats instead of objectives, then there is plenty of arguments and evidence that this is happening at least to SOME extent. Where the real discussion needs to take place is if this is actually contributing to the overall suck of the axis ground game or is merely inconsequential phenomena that can be ignored.

I started my TAW in axis. And i came across an attitude of "if it flies under 2-3 km, i am not touching it". Whenever i went in low, to save 110''s behind, i found myself quickly surrounded by 3-4 reds while there is happy flight of German contrails over the objective. After a while, it got old and i just started to play reds.

Allied attitude in TAW is this: We will fight on the beaches, we will fight in space, we will fight over our tanks or theirs, we shall never surrender. Whatever the cost.

While Axis attitude is: if its under 2km, i don't care even if it bombed Berlin.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Soooo, can you like, i don't know, post some arguments to support your assertions?

Because this stinks to me more like "ive red a book of WW2 German ace and i want to fly just like him and make that style of flying the only kosher one".

And if we classify the issue of certain team going for stats instead of objectives, then there is plenty of arguments and evidence that this is happening at least to SOME extent. Where the real discussion needs to take place is if this is actually contributing to the overall suck of the axis ground game or is merely inconsequential phenomena that can be ignored.

When talking about the ground objectives you have 2 issues. Axis ground attackers survivability and ability to deal with tanks is generally worse than its counterparts and 109s, in a tactical sense, are being inferior as well.

Let me explain why i think that the Bf 109 is as much of an issue when talking about ground attacking (not level bombing) as the the inferior ground attacking abilities in itself. Because you seem to really like real life examples and you quoted Churchill, lets start with the Battle of Britain. This battle of attrition (which most TAW maps boil down to but that's beside the point) was partly lost because 109s were forced to give close escort to bombers, denying them the more efficient "free hunt". This took away a lot of advantages of the 109 which didn't go too well neither for the 109 Pilot nor for the overall success.

This applies in a great deal to the situation we have at hand as well. It is always a very difficult balancing act for 109s to do low level escorts. Fly too high and you won't be able to act in time to protect your attackers. Fly too low and you will lose a lot of your advantages which in the end doesn't help your attackers either. The 109 is a bad fit for low level escort duties as much as VVS aircrafts are a bad fit for high level escort duties.

Which makes the 109 suffer to an equal extent is in my opinion that it is more difficult to fly. Not because you need more "skill" or because it is the worse airplane (quite the contrary) but because it requires a completely different mindset opposed to the general perception of air combat. When you take a look at popular media, you won't find a single example of how a 109 is supposed to be flown. If you fly a 109 and try to play like you see in the movies you are going to have a much much harder time than when sitting in most VVS aircrafts. VVS aircrafts have a much more direct access way to combat.

Another issue in this discussion is that people focus too much on 1v1 situations and don't talk about the tactical aspect at all. In sterile lab 1v1 conditions the Bf 109 is superior to nearly all VVS aircrafts. Yet it can struggle in combat because it rarely comes to this. A good example of this is one of the most common deaths of 109s. After they attacked an enemy they try to do a vertical loop to keep their energy up just to become easy prey for another VVS with more/equal energy. There are many factors in play when it comes to combat. Should the 109 still do better than VVS aircrafts? absolutely. Its just an aircraft that apparently is hard to master and has very little room for mistakes (unlike popular vvs aircrafts). I also think many players would consider flying it the way it is meant to be as rather boring, after all there is a reason why it isn't shown in popular media (instead we get this). If you could replace all players on both sides with the top 10, you will surely get different results in the end but this is not the case. Not the top 10 win or lose maps but the vast majority and the vast majority sucks at flying 109s.

I still don't understand why people try to argue that there are simply different players on Axis side. Of course you have stats focused players (which isn't necessarily a bad thing in my opinion) but that goes for both sides.

I don't know where this "kamikaze" dogma came from that you have to die to win the map either. Axis won't win when they start lawn mowing to protect their ground attackers.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

When talking about the ground objectives you have 2 issues. Axis ground attackers survivability and ability to deal with tanks is generally worse than its counterparts [...]

I still don't understand why people try to argue that there are simply different players on Axis side. Of course you have stats focused players (which isn't necessarily a bad thing in my opinion) but that goes for both sides.

I don't know where this "kamikaze" dogma came from that you have to die to win the map either. Axis won't win when they start lawn mowing to protect their ground attackers.

Axis ground attackers aren't necessarily worse than their counterparts. While they are more vulnerable to Flak fire, they can carry quite an amazing bombload in comparison. At the same time, both Stukas and 110s may be slow compared to a fighter but very maneuverable, and the Ju88 can attain quite high speeds. As you already know all about, it's simply a trade-off (which was somehow spoilt by 61Ks 2 TAW campaigns ago, but that's another matter that seems solved by now). I think we can agree on that.

Regarding the Hartmann issue, people argue that point because they all noticed it, and it's true for both sides, we can agree on that as well... On what you probably haven't thought of, is the percentual amount of pilots flying this way. It's much higher on the LW side. I say this fully convinced, I flew both sides each in the last 2 campaigns. Who knows, maybe changing the points given to stats and modifying the page slightly might help this? Make attacking ground objects "more worthwhile" in the eyes of statpadders? Your opinion is also welcome on that, because the pilots' inherent motivation remains speculative.

I aks you to take a look at your last sentence, which is a (probably unintentional) strawman. We didn't say that "you had to die to win the map" or to take up a "kamikaze" dogma. We said "take more risks", that is what we said. What is actually true, is that Axis have done fairly better tactically when the fighters flew lower to protect the ground attackers - in groups. We tested this the last two campaigns on a few occasions. Of course, that does not mean to fly right on the deck - that would be idiotic. But flying 1km above your attackers makes a whole lot of difference, especially in the quickly locking 109. It just takes way too much time to get down from too high altitude, and lets not forget quite a few pilots have spotting issues from very high towards the deck (I exclude myself there, but I'm not on a very common setup). Hence, if the StuKas and ZGs fly at 2km, it means to fly at 3km. For example, seeing Jagdgeschwader 4 in action, the Axis managed to capture several airfields within just a few hours each time they did this, and pushed the front considerably. It happened in bursts. They were unargueably the most effective Axis squadron in the last TAW campaign - while many Aussies played that vital part for the VVS at the other side of the day.

Flying solely at +5km is CloD / WT Grmlz-esque; which were different scenarios, one over the Channel, the other game purely about air superiority. We'll be saying good-bye to that, dedicatedly, in the next campaign. Even Riksen, who has proven repeatedly during the last campaigns, that he is the best flying 109 ace in this game.

Edited June 18, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

1

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Axis ground attackers aren't necessarily worse than their counterparts. While they are more vulnerable to Flak fire, they can carry quite an amazing bombload in comparison. At the same time, both Stukas and 110s may be slow compared to a fighter but very maneuverable, and the Ju88 can attain quite high speeds. As you already know all about, it's simply a trade-off (which was somehow spoilt by 61Ks 2 TAW campaigns ago, but that's another matter that seems solved by now). I think we can agree on that.

Yes they have the bomb load advantage which is why airfield level bombing is their advantage. However they simply can't compete with the IL2s tank busting abilities. While its true that 110s and Stukas can be quite maneuverable its not anything to write home about because it won't safe you. Sure there are players who do some shenanigans with it but always without bombs.

54 minutes ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

Regarding the Hartmann issue, people argue that point because they all noticed it, and it's true for both sides, we can agree on that as well... On what you probably haven't thought of, is the percentual amount of pilots flying this way. It's much higher on the LW side. I say this fully convinced, I flew both sides each in the last 2 campaigns. Who knows, maybe changing the points given to stats and modifying the page slightly might help this? Make attacking ground objects "more worthwhile" in the eyes of statpadders? Your opinion is also welcome on that, because the pilots' inherent motivation remains speculative.

I am not disputing the fact that there are quite a few of "those" players around on axis side. I am simply explaining the reasoning behind it and that's not due to them not wanting to win but that they feel pushed into that situation because they can't help it any other way. And on a sidenote: Statpadding is something completely different.

As for me? It might be harsh to say but i learned the lesson the hard way to never trust a "random". I help where i can and we (hydra) always work towards winning the map but i am not going to kill all my energy to help a 109 with a yak on his 6 who is turning like a mad man for example. Some people are simply beyond help. All of the mentioned suggestions towards the stats page won't change anything. In fact in some cases it would make the situation even worse.

Edited June 18, 2018 by Operation_Ivy

1

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yes they have the bomb load advantage which is why airfield level bombing is their advantage. However they simply can't compete with the IL2s tank busting abilities. While its true that 110s and Stukas can be quite maneuverable its not anything to write home about because it won't safe you. Sure there are players who do some shenanigans with it but always without bombs.

That is not true. We 7th Guards focused on tank-killing this past campaign and were quite far ahead of everybody else for most of it. Then, the VVS got the A-20 and Kondor and HvB pulled neck and neck and then passed us over the course of one map. We ended up pulling ahead again, but the evidence is clear. With the static, sitting duck convoys of TAW the truly most effective tank-killing tactic is to fly down the length of the convoy from the rear(the guns have to turn to shoot at you) and carpet bomb it. That is a fact, no two ways about it. You can do that just as well in the Ju-88 and well enough in the 110.

1 hour ago, Operation_Ivy said:

Yes they have the bomb load advantage which is why airfield level bombing is their advantage. However they simply can't compete with the IL2s tank busting abilities. While its true that 110s and Stukas can be quite maneuverable its not anything to write home about because it won't safe you. Sure there are players who do some shenanigans with it but always without bombs.

I am not disputing the fact that there are quite a few of "those" players around on axis side. I am simply explaining the reasoning behind it and that's not due to them not wanting to win but that they feel pushed into that situation because they can't help it any other way. And on a sidenote: Statpadding is something completely different.

As for me? It might be harsh to say but i learned the lesson the hard way to never trust a "random". I help where i can and we (hydra) always work towards winning the map but i am not going to kill all my energy to help a 109 with a yak on his 6 who is turning like a mad man for example. Some people are simply beyond help. All of the mentioned suggestions towards the stats page won't change anything. In fact in some cases it would make the situation even worse.

At the end of the day, watching and participating in this discussion has given me one primary impression, and that is that if we fly Axis this next campaign we will have nowhere near the cover we get on VVS, and they fighter guys will be happy with their justifications. C'est la guerre, but I can't say I particularly care to fill that role.

Edited June 18, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That is not true. We 7th Guards focused on tank-killing this past campaign and were quite far ahead of everybody else for most of it. Then, the VVS got the A-20 and Kondor and HvB pulled neck and neck and then passed us over the course of one map. We ended up pulling ahead again, but the evidence is clear. With the static, sitting duck convoys of TAW the truly most effective tank-killing tactic is to fly down the length of the convoy from the rear(the guns have to turn to shoot at you) and carpet bomb it. That is a fact, no two ways about it. You can do that just as well in the Ju-88 and well enough in the 110.

While this might be true, Top 5 tank killers and tank killer squadrons are nearly always 100% VVS and thats not simply due to VVS players are better / covering their attackers. Also german tanks are way easier to destroy than russians..

30 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

At the end of the day, watching and participating in this discussion has given me one primary impression, and that is that if we fly Axis this next campaign we will have nowhere near the cover we get on VVS, and they fighter guys will be happy with their justifications. C'est la guerre, but I can't say I particularly care to fill that role.

You seem to completely miss my point?

I never disputed this issue on axis side. I simply give a more sophisticated explanation than "axis pilots just don't want to win, they do everything wrong"

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I've always felt that the Germans need communication more than the russians in TAW (both, of course, benefit from comms)

For example,

1) lets assume a hypothetical situation 40vs40, with noone on any comms whatsoever. Then, in my opinion, the vvs has the advantage* (ground war wise, but also less planes and pilots losses - see most missions of last campaign).

2) if it were 20 squads of 2 pilots against 20 squads of 2 pilots, with the squads typing in-game some info to each other, then I wouldn't really know who has the advantage

3) Gradually, as the level of communication (and thus organization) increases, the LW gets more advantages compared to VVS

4) if somehow there were 40 germans simultaneous on same comms* against 40 russians themselves on same comms*, the Gerries would wipe the floor

*"same comms" would be something like air marshall : I think that when/if Air Marshall ever comes (and gets included in TAW) and somehow people listen to the Marshall, then the germans will be able to consistently mount massive bomber raids, say 10*ju88 + 10 escort and wipe 2 airfields per mission.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That's a pretty bold statement, there are so many Pilots who leave Riksen in the dust, at a 1vs1 109 fight.

Like schwarze said, i think aces are proven by kill count, not only does he have the highest kill count every season of TAW, but it's rare he ever gets shot down himself. Like last campaign, He only got shot down by another aircraft once; and he never died.

Sure, he might not be good in a twist and turning dogfight, but that's not how you play with the 109, he uses the strengths of the 109 for his favor, and only engages when an opportunity allows it.

So i i agree with fenris,that he is the best flying 109 ace. He plays to the strength and weaknesses of the 109, not wasting time in a 1v1

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have to say that for someone who only just recently bought the game and was kind of looking forward, towards his first serious blue campaign on TAW, this whole argument seems... discouraging to say the least! I'll spare you from my personal opinion as a crappy Stuka pilot, but let's just say this was not what I was expecting!

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If there was none, that might be discouraging. Anyway, SCG's leadership has decided to switch strategies for this campaign and go ahead to fly attackers, escorts, and tightly knit to the strategical victory. If others want to remain at 6km, they are free to do so. After some initial testing, we are convinced that this makes the simulation much more interesting (and fun) as well. Check your PM! 😃

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Like schwarze said, i think aces are proven by kill count, not only does he have the highest kill count every season of TAW, but it's rare he ever gets shot down himself. Like last campaign, He only got shot down by another aircraft once; and he never died.﻿

Sure, he might not be good in a twist and turning dogfight, but that's not how you play with the 109, he uses the strengths of the 109 for his favor, and only engages when an opportunity allows it.

So i i agree with fenris,that he is the best flying 109 ace. He plays to the strength and weaknesses of the 109, not wasting time in a 1v1

Riksen had the highest streak, not the highest kill count and he was shot down more than once, hence the 12 lost aircraft i'd assume.

Don't get me wrong here man, Riksen is a damn good pilot, no one can argue about that, nor will i!

It just sounded a bit overkill, and i was only refering to piloting skills in a 109 vs 109 duel, not refering to the flying a 109 to its strength and all that ladida boombiddy byebye...

Which really isn't that hard anyways, right!?

PS: If Riksen would fly to his full potential and not care about the streak stuff too much, i believe he would easily make 1st place and contribute much more to each campaign, but that is just my thought, no offense intended.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That's a pretty bold statement, there are so many Pilots who leave Riksen in the dust, at a 1vs1 109 fight.

Agreed. Just to be clear, I'm not here to compete with anyone .... just to have fun. I'm afraid I have to step away from this discussion as I'm not claiming to be better than anyone nor would wish to be. I appreciate the kind words nonetheless. Like I said, I'm here just to have fun and enjoy flying as a group and friends. I'm not nearly as good as some other guys here individually but that is not what the game is about for me anyways. Well enough of that, let's change topics and focus on TAW please.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

He's going to fly as a grunt this time. We will all be more effective to the campaign due to this, because that's the approach we decided on.

Still, best pilot in the air superiority role with one life, and short play time even. How many campaigns now consecutively - 3 ? BTW, most effective squad on axis side was neither Hydra nor us at SCG. It was JG4. They capped so many airfields and flew so many defenses at the right point at the right time like no other, but they're not in the top 5. That's the point. Stat points may need some adjustments to reflect such things. To incite the average Joe to work harder on the campaign goals. Surely you can agree to at least this, it looks like you value effectiveness on campaign the most.

Just saying. You don't need to agree to this, these are merely observations. Make what you will of it...

See you west of Moscow soon! o7

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Like schwarze said, i think aces are proven by kill count, not only does he have the highest kill count every season of TAW, but it's rare he ever gets shot down himself. Like last campaign, He only got shot down by another aircraft once; and he never died.

Sure, he might not be good in a twist and turning dogfight, but that's not how you play with the 109, he uses the strengths of the 109 for his favor, and only engages when an opportunity allows it.

So i i agree with fenris,that he is the best flying 109 ace. He plays to the strength and weaknesses of the 109, not wasting time in a 1v1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

When talking about the ground objectives you have 2 issues. Axis ground attackers survivability and ability to deal with tanks is generally worse than its counterparts and 109s, in a tactical sense, are being inferior as well.

I still don't understand why people try to argue that there are simply different players on Axis side.

1st point, yes if you go in with a 109 by yourself you are going to die. Same goes for bombing in a P40. Do it alone and the flak will kill you. As a fictional Luftwaffe pilot myself I fly both sides. I very rarely bomb in a 109. There are other aircraft for that. I will however, fight on the deck to cover bombers like a Ju88. It can be done successfully.

Currently as Blue players ARE DIFFERENT I get to paste unescorted low Ju88's and Stukas all map long in TAW. Another trend I see is that Blue pilots tend to be spread across a much wider set of communications programs and channels. This is in BoX and Cliffs. It is a distinct trend I have witnessed during my 3000 hours of play between the two games. Admittedly it is much more Cliffs time than BoX by a great deal. Blue pilots tend to separate across a much broader comms set and team play suffers.

Red pilots tend to seek each other out and group into comms more often. The pub channels for Wings indicate this to be true not just in TAW. Same went for RED side in ATAG. Red channel is full while the blue channel sits just about empty even though the server is rammed to the tits with players. Not every RED squadron or player is like this but enough come together regularly to be really dangerous. To be blunt, blue squadrons are getting beat by randoms in a pub channel.

We also see more refusal on blue side to fly anything else but blue. This is opposite to Cliffs where it's hard to get butts out of Spitfires. This is how I came to fly blue. In Cliffs like BoX I like to fly short side. In order to do that I learnt how to fly 109s. Guys flat out refuse to fly 109s and ONLY fly Spits and Hurris. In BoX we find the opposite problem.

I am in 7th Staffel in ACG. I love my 109s but I love a balanced campaign more. If more blue had this attitude perhaps they wouldn't get their ass handed to them almost every campaign. Stop blaming your tools. It's the sign of a shitty tradesman at work, what does it say here? It's not the tool, it's you.

Elanski kicks ass in a P40, just sayin.

On 6/17/2018 at 12:37 AM, LLv44_Mprhead said:

What I meant by "turning like crazy" being often the problem was that if you are in german fighter in disadvantage and you try to get out of harms way by turning as tight as you can, you make it quite hard for your buddy higher up to help you out. Ofc being on comms helps a lot in this.

Don't turn like crazy for longer than one kick pull for a shot. When the slats are out you bleed too much speed.

Turning like crazy should only be used if you don't care about getting shot down or you have them up your butt and you want to bleed speed for an overshoot. If you are turn and burning in a 109 for any length of time you are more often than not going to die. I do this all the time in a 109 as I can't help myself as an ex spit pilot and love the deck fight...... It's just too fun. It is a bad idea though.

Continuous dives with a shallow climb out for a reset is better. A lot of 109s hang themselves and a lot of us wait for it. My 2c anyway. We all have our own styles.

On a note, just because someone has YT videos doesn't mean he's amazing or knows everything. Yet, they accumulate large fanbases who really believe just that. It's fine though, there is a lot of entertaining footage on YT. My favourite videomaker is Mr.X, who's an amazing gunner, and yet I outfought him on TAW last campaign over Kuban. He still managed to run and turn it into a draw, and it was one of the most amazing duels I had. Even more so afterwards when I saw the damage indications in the sortie feed. My biggest respect to the guy. Watching footage is very selective, you can pull out some amazing footage of even a bad day. Anyway, as Riksen said - it is most important to enjoy the time

And that's what we all should be doing now. TAW is around the corner and people are hardly holding their already wild horses. A few friendly shots in the forums keep the tension alive. All good😁

TAW very soon!

Edited June 18, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If there was none, that might be discouraging. Anyway, SCG's leadership has decided to switch strategies for this campaign and go ahead to fly attackers, escorts, and tightly knit to the strategical victory. If others want to remain at 6km, they are free to do s﻿﻿o. After some initial testing, we are convinced that this makes the simulation much more interesting (and fun) as well. Check your PM! 😃﻿﻿﻿

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

With Jason's recent answer in the thread about the Po-2, I thought about its use in TAW.

It's coming and looks awesome! You'll see it soon. Not to worry.

Jason

2 scenario's have sprung to my mind:

A) the release of the Po-2 comes together with specific missions it can perform in multiplayer* (arty spotting, searching for bailed-out crew behind enemy lines,... and plenty of other stuff). Then I'd much like those implemented in some way in TAW (obviously)

B) the release of the Po-2 doesn't come with specific mission types in multiplayer*.

The question arising from scenario B would be : "how can the Po-2 be integrated into the TAW campaign as a fun, interactive and meaningful way?". Fun and interactive go hand in hand I'd say, else very very few people would fly it. Meaningful ofcourse, else people would fly it to have fun but it would be completely useless and be a dead weight to their team. The only thing/suggestion I thought of would be "a Po-2 takes off from damaged airfield to a non-damaged one, mimicking an ambulance Po-2 taking wounded personnel from the front to the back. This would count as a supply mission repairing the damaged airfield".

* I presume that when the Po-2 comes out, 1CGS will also release some type of Single Player missions especially designed for the Po-2. like night bombing, or arty spotting, or some close air recon on tactical level, but these will maybe not be implemented in multiplayer environment

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The only drama with public TS on TAW is that just as I start giving an IP to target briefing or some other vital piece of information some fighter dude always jumps in with something like:

“WHOAH MAN! I’M SO F%#KING STONED RIGHT NOW! THESE TRACERS COMING UP AT ME LOOK INSANE IN VR, MAN! HEY WHERE IS EVERYONE?! WHY CAN’T I SEE MY GPS ICON!? SHIT I JUST SPILLED MY BEER AND PISSED IN MY PANTS A LITTLE -HEY DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEN THE NEXT SEASON OF ‘GAME OF THRONES’ STARTS?! YAHOO!!!”

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The only drama with public TS on TAW is that just as I start giving an IP to target briefing or some other vital piece of information some fighter dude always jumps in with something like:

“WHOAH MAN! I’M SO F%#KING STONED RIGHT NOW! THESE TRACERS COMING UP AT ME LOOK INSANE IN VR, MAN! HEY WHERE IS EVERYONE?! WHY CAN’T I SEE MY GPS ICON!? SHIT I JUST SPILLED MY BEER AND PISSED IN MY PANTS A LITTLE -HEY DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEN THE NEXT SEASON OF ‘GAME OF THRONES’ STARTS?! YAHOO!!!”

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The only drama with public TS on TAW is that just as I start giving an IP to target briefing or some other vital piece of information some fighter dude always jumps in with something like:

“WHOAH MAN! I’M SO F%#KING STONED RIGHT NOW! THESE TRACERS COMING UP AT ME LOOK INSANE IN VR, MAN! HEY WHERE IS EVERYONE?! WHY CAN’T I SEE MY GPS ICON!? SHIT I JUST SPILLED MY BEER AND PISSED IN MY PANTS A LITTLE -HEY DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEN THE NEXT SEASON OF ‘GAME OF THRONES’ STARTS?! YAHOO!!!”

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

With Jason's recent answer in the thread about the Po-2, I thought about its use in TAW.

It's coming and looks awesome! You'll see it soon. Not to worry.

Jason

2 scenario's have sprung to my mind:

A) the release of the Po-2 comes together with specific missions it can perform in multiplayer* (arty spotting, searching for bailed-out crew behind enemy lines,... and plenty of other stuff). Then I'd much like those implemented in some way in TAW (obviously)

B) the release of the Po-2 doesn't come with specific mission types in multiplayer*.

The question arising from scenario B would be : "how can the Po-2 be integrated into the TAW campaign as a fun, interactive and meaningful way?". Fun and interactive go hand in hand I'd say, else very very few people would fly it. Meaningful ofcourse, else people would fly it to have fun but it would be completely useless and be a dead weight to their team. The only thing/suggestion I thought of would be "a Po-2 takes off from damaged airfield to a non-damaged one, mimicking an ambulance Po-2 taking wounded personnel from the front to the back. This would count as a supply mission repairing the damaged airfield".

* I presume that when the Po-2 comes out, 1CGS will also release some type of Single Player missions especially designed for the Po-2. like night bombing, or arty spotting, or some close air recon on tactical level, but these will maybe not be implemented in multiplayer environment

some time ago TAW team stated that the transport missions will be done by transport aircraft only when the Li2 appears.

In my opinion when po2 will be released (which will be way earlier than Li2) the transport missions should be done by Ju52 and po2 only.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

some time ago TAW team stated that the transport missions will be done by transport aircraft only when the Li2 appears.

In my opinion when po2 will be released (which will be way earlier than Li2) the transport missions should be done by Ju52 and po2 only.

I disagree, its not like you would expect PO2's to be able to ferry anything close to the cargo capacity of a JU52.

JU52's currently get about twice as much % repair, as other transports. It's an incentive to fly this slow bird, over lets say a ju88 transport. Po2 is also going to be slow, and while transport missions for it may have a place, it should be at a vastly reduced % level to reflect it's tiny cargo capacity.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I disagree, its not like you would expect PO2's to be able to ferry anything close to the cargo capacity of a JU52.

JU52's currently get about twice as much % repair, as other transports. It's an incentive to fly this slow bird, other lets say a ju88 transport. Po2 is also going to be slow, and while transport missions for it may have a place, it should be at a vastly reduced % level to reflect it's tiny cargo capacity.

I'm wondering how to make the arty strike happen.

Maybe a recon mission by Po2 and ask for a arty strike after spotted the targets.

But how to tell the targets' postion to those AI arty? Maybe these idea can become real after the marshall system released.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I disagree, its not like you would expect PO2's to be able to ferry anything close to the cargo capacity of a JU52.

JU52's currently get about twice as much % repair, as other transports. It's an incentive to fly this slow bird, over lets say a ju88 transport. Po2 is also going to be slow, and while transport missions for it may have a place, it should be at a vastly reduced % level to reflect it's tiny cargo capacity.

But when the incentive is to get more combat missions...why supply the same amount in the end as two 88's but only get 1 CM?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I disagree, its not like you would expect PO2's to be able to ferry anything close to the cargo capacity of a JU52.

JU52's currently get about twice as much % repair, as other transports. It's an incentive to fly this slow bird, over lets say a ju88 transport. Po2 is also going to be slow, and while transport missions for it may have a place, it should be at a vastly reduced % level to reflect it's tiny cargo capacity.

What Ju52 or PO2 can lift in real life is totally irrelevant as for TAW campaign.

The flights are to simulate that some key, lost during enemy attack spare parts/people (mechanics, pilots, political officers ;)) are brought in, and which is the most important to make use of the airplanes that normally have almost no place on multiplayer server. (TAW could also consider making the po2 and ju52 transport runs as CM+2)

the other bigger positive side if only Ju52 and po2 could fly transport missions would be the fact that meybe more people would buy po2/ju52. The succesfull sale of PO2 for sure would make more addon planes possible (cough cough hurrricane , sb2 cough cough ;))

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

We planned to add a new mission for transport aircraft. Medical evacuation. Unfortunately, due to the lack of time and laziness, these types of missions will be available from the next campaign. Personally, I'd rather see Li-2 as a new plane than Po-2 as the first. We also plan to create a more historical plane set. However, there is a small gap in planes( Yak-1 earlier version for example) If you have any solutions, we will be happy to hear. Now however the plane set will not change much.

Registration will be available in a few days and I suggest to set a whisper on teamspeak, with friendly teams.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

While this might be true, Top 5 tank killers and tank killer squadrons are nearly always 100% VVS and thats not simply due to VVS players are better / covering their attackers. Also german tanks are way easier to destroy than russians..

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

i have a question to set on the table! Is it possible to have a quorum as it was in ADW?

This is is not the first time that I notice that, but it is very difficult and frustrating to go to sleep with half of the map won and wake up only to see that two or three pilots during the night have change in favor of the opposite team.